The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear and keep arms, but many Americans don’t know that the original intent of the amendment was not to protect against our neighbors but to stand against their government should the need arise. This is why we should proceed with extreme caution when any politician begins to talk about gun control. The second amendment is something that has been squabbled about for decades and the argument will likely continue for decades more.
Liberals state they want to take gun rights away from citizens for the health and safety of others. Just a glance at the numbers should tell you that this reasoning is false. If their true intent was to protect human life then their first fight should be to ban tobacco which kills over 12 times the people compared to guns nationwide. Their next target should be alcohol, which claims four times as many lives as guns.
Graphs made from 2018 data released by: National Safety Council American Journal of managed care, Center for Disease Control (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO).
Banning the use of cars would certainly save more lives than banning guns. In fact, all of the choices seem more logical when you consider that in order for guns to be banned we’d have to make a change to the United States Constitution. So the next time you hear of gun control, keep in mind that if their primary objective was public safety they wouldn’t be asking for your guns, they would be focusing on the things that statistically have a higher chance of killing you. What they’re really asking for is your freedom.
Liberals want gun control and conservatives want the freedom awarded by the second amendment. Is there a solution? Maybe.
What if all guns required an insurance policy? That seems to have worked for other situations that involve assets that have the potential for causing damage to others. While no insurance settlement will be able to ease the pain of a loved one being lost to gun violence, an insurance requirement will mean gun owners take more precautionary steps with their weapons and in turn preventing them from falling into the hands of someone not authorized to use them.
Insurance companies could then judge the dangerousness of a particular weapon, based on actual damage that similar weapons had done in the past, and write policies accordingly. It’s far from a perfect scenario, but it might be a compromise that both sides could find acceptable, and definitely something we should consider before a change to the constitution and the removal of one of our oldest freedoms.
Have an opinion or essay to share? Email firstname.lastname@example.org